Showing posts with label tax credits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax credits. Show all posts

Friday, April 24, 2020

Qualifying health plan expenses may result in larger employment tax credits under the FFCRA and the CARES Act

Both the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the FFCRA) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provide for payroll tax credits for the payment of certain employee wages until Dec. 31, 2020. Under both laws, the amount of these wages include "qualifying health plan expenses," which may result in a larger payroll tax credit.

Under the FFCRA, an employer is typically eligible for a fully refundable payroll tax credit that is equal to the qualified sick leave wages and the qualified family leave wages, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses paid between April 1, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2020.

Under the CARES Act, an employer whose operations is fully or partially suspended may be eligible for a payroll tax credit up to 50 percent of the wages paid (up to $10,000) between March 12, 2020 and Jan. 1, 2021. Again, these wages include allocable qualified health plan expenses.

Employers may offset the amount of their anticipated payroll tax credits under the FFCRA and the CARES Act against their deposit of employment taxes (including income tax withholdings) with the IRS. Since many employers are required to make these deposits with the IRS on a semi-weekly basis, employers should start determining their qualified health plan expenses as soon as possible.

Technical Jargon

Both the FFCRA and the CARES Act include the following provisions:

That the amount of the credit (under the FFCRA) or the amount of qualified wages (under the CARES Act) includes the employer's allocable "qualified health plan expenses.")
"Qualified health plan expenses" means "amounts paid or incurred by the employer to provide and maintain a group health plan (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code), but only to the extent that such amounts are excluded from the gross income of employees by reason of section 106(a) of the code.
The FFCRA and the CARES Act direct the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe how qualified health plan expenses are allocated but also state that, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by the Secretary, such allocation shall be treated as properly made if made on the basis of being pro rata among employees and pro rata on the basis of periods of coverage (relative to the periods such wages relate)."

Practical Advice

The provisions related to determining qualified health plan expenses for purposes of claiming payroll tax credits under either the FFCRA or the CARES Act are difficult to interpret. The following sections break these provisions down so that they are better understood. The first step is to determine which health plan expenses are eligible for a payroll tax credit. The second step is to allocate these expenses to the appropriate employees.

Eligible Health Plans

A "group health plan" under the Internal Revenue Code includes all plans that are subject to the continuation of coverage requirements under COBRA. As a result, the following employer-sponsored plans are included for purposes of determining the payroll tax credit under both the FFCRA and the CARES Act:

Medical/prescription drugs.
Dental.
Vision.
Medical flexible spending accounts (medical FSAs).
Health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), except for qualified small employer HRAs (QSHRAs).
Employee assistance plans (other than referral-only EAPs).
Onsite medical clinics.
Eligible Expenses

Expenses incurred as a result of providing one of the above group health plans are only included for purposes of determining the payroll tax credit under the FFCRA and the CARES Act to the extent these amounts are excluded from the gross income of employees under the tax code. This includes amounts paid by the employer. It also includes amounts that are paid by employees through pretax salary reductions under a Section 125 Cafeteria plan. Amounts paid by employees on an after-tax basis, such as COBRA premiums, are not included for purposes of determining the payroll tax credit.

Allocating Expenses

The IRS issued a series of FAQs regarding the payroll tax credits under the FFCRA. The IRS also issued FAQs on the payroll tax credits under the CARES Act, but those FAQs don't address qualified health plan expenses. Since the statutory provision regarding the allocation of qualified health plan expenses is the same under the FFCRA and the CARES Act, it appears reasonable that the FAQs on how to allocate these expenses under the FFCRA would apply equally to the CARES Act.

Fully Insured Group Health Plans

The IRS's FAQs give the following three allocation methods with respect to fully insured group health plans:

The COBRA applicable premium for the employee typically available from the insurer (while the FAQs are silent on this, we do not recommend including the 2 percent administrative fee).
One average premium rate for all employees.
A substantially similar method that takes into account the average premium rate determined separately for employees with self-only and other than self-only coverage.
The FAQs only give an example of the second allocation method. Here is that example:

An Eligible Employer sponsors an insured group health plan that covers 400 employees, some with self-only coverage and some with family coverage. Each employee is expected to have 260 work days a year. (Five days a week for 52 weeks.) The employees contribute a portion of their premium by pre-tax salary reduction, with different amounts for self-only and family. The total annual premium for the 400 employees is $5.2 million. (This includes both the amount paid by the Eligible Employer and the amounts paid by employees through salary reduction.)

For an Eligible Employer using one average premium rate for all employees, the average annual premium rate is $5.2 million divided by 400, or $13,000. For each employee expected to have 260 work days a year, this results in a daily average premium rate equal to $13,000 divided by 260 or $50. That $50 is the amount of qualified health expenses allocated to each day of paid sick or family leave per employee.

Self-Insured Group Health Plans

With respect to self-insured group health plans, the FAQs give the following two allocation methods:

The COBRA applicable premium for the employee typically available from the administrator (again, while the FAQs are silent on this, we do not recommend including the 2 percent administrative fee).

Any reasonable actuarial method to determine the estimated annual expenses of the plan.

The FAQs do not, however, give any examples of the allocation methods for self-insured group health plans.

Exerpt from SHRM Artcile by: Tripp VanderWal © Miller Johnson
April 23, 2020

Monday, January 15, 2018

Maryland House votes to override Hogan's veto of paid sick leave bill

Democratic lawmakers in Maryland's House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly Thursday to override Gov. Larry Hogan’s veto of the paid sick leave law passed last year.

The House voted 88-52 to override the veto of the Maryland Healthy Working Families Act. Before the bill can become law, the Senate must also override the veto with a three-fifths majority vote. That vote is expected to take place Friday.

The Maryland Healthy Working Families Act was a top priority for Democrats last year. The law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide up to five days of paid sick leave. Businesses with fewer than 15 employees have to provide five unpaid sick days. A coalition of groups including the National Federal for Independent Businesses and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill.

"We’re sorry to see that the House did not understand the damage HB1 will do to employers and their employees, especially in small businesses," Christine Ross, CEO of the Chamber said in a statement. "We hope to see that understanding from the Senate."

Hogan, a Republican, vetoed the legislation last May. He has described the law as "confusing, unwieldy, unfair and deeply flawed" and said it would destroy Maryland's economy, hurt small businesses and result in the loss of thousands of jobs.

A spokeswoman for Hogan's office called the House's vote a "political exercise" and said, "many legislators have already acknowledged that this bill is deeply flawed and needs to be fixed."

"Fortunately, there is plenty of time to pass the governor’s compromise legislation, including the incentives for small businesses, and create a paid leave policy that provides needed benefits to workers while protecting our job creators," Shareese Churchill, Hogan's press secretary, said in a statement. "Marylanders are more interested in good policy than partisan politics and there is still time to get this right."

Hogan proposed his own paid sick leave law last year, but the legislature never voted on it. He has proposed another one, but if the General Assembly overrides his veto it is unlikely those bill would be considered either.

The vote to override the veto sets the stage for what is shaping up to be a contentious 90 days as Hogan and Democratic lawmakers face off ahead of the gubernatorial election later this year.

During the debate before the vote, Republicans argued that the bill hurts small businesses and is "deeply flawed." Some women from the Republican caucus said the bill would put women who are victims of sexual violence in a position of "revictimizing" themselves because they have to explain to employers why they are taking sick leave.

Del. Dereck Davis, chairman of the Economic Matters Committee, said over the last three years there have been 30 amendments to the bill at the behest of business advocates.

"It's time to fold it guys," Davis said on the House floor. "There have been countless hours of debate. We have met with stakeholders and read hours of testimony...Democracy has to run its course. HB1, time to get it done."

Del. Cheryl Glenn, a Democrat from Baltimore City, said she was a victim of sexual violence at the hands of her ex-husband. She implored her colleagues to support the bill because providing paid sick leave would give women the ability to stay home at work without having to make a tough decision between staying home or going to work and risk being followed by the abuser.

"As a survivor and a victim, it's a very, very tough situation to be in, especially if you are working and trying to take care of your family every day," Glenn said. "Let's give victims an opportunity to take leave here."

The 32BJ SEIU union and the Maryland Working Families Party have been pushing for the law for the past several years. They and other left-leaning organization rallied Thursday morning in front of the State House to support paid sick leave.

"Marylanders are sending the message loud and clear: they need paid sick leave, so they don’t have to decide between their health and financial ruin,” 32BJ SEIU Vice President Jaime Contreras said in a statement. “An overwhelming majority of voters on both sides of the aisle expect leaders to put their health and well-being over politics.” 

Contreras and Maryland Working Families Executive Director Charly Carter both celebrated the House's vote as an important step in helping families across the state

"Today, the Maryland General Assembly voted to put Maryland’s working families first," Carter said in a statement. "We commend their choice to stand up to our out-of-touch governor, and to tear down barriers to employment for all Marylanders."

The union and Maryland Working Families are using social media, print media, an online petition and brochures to target senators "who are on the fence" in Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Prince George's County.

The Chamber of Commerce is also mobilizing its members to call senators, urging them to sustain the veto. One Democratic senator has to flip in order to sustain the veto.

By Holden Wilen  –  Reporter, Baltimore Business Journal
Jan 11, 2018, 11:44am EST Updated Jan 11, 2018, 1:27pm

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

COURT BARS PPACA AID FOR FEDERAL EXCHANGE SHOPPERS

By Andrew Zajac
July 22 (Bloomberg)

President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul suffered a potentially crippling blow as a U.S. appeals court ruled the government can’t give financial assistance to anyone buying
coverage on the insurance marketplace run by federal authorities.  

The decision, if it withstands appeals, may deprive more than half the people who signed up for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the tax credits they need to buy a health plan.

The way PPACA is written makes clear that the subsidy is available only to people who
bought plans on state-run exchanges, a three-judge panel in Washington ruled today.

Only 14 states have opted to set up their own marketplaces, making delivery of tax credits via
the federal exchange crucial to meeting Obamacare’s goal of broadening health-care coverage
in the U.S.

“A very large share of people need the subsidies,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health
policy at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

If the ruling isn’t overturned, “it basically would significantly cripple the law,” Blendon said in an
interview before the ruling.